In the late 1940's, the world of Russian
intellectuals found itself subjected to the political whims and whips
of dictator Joseph Stalin and his supporters. Poets, artists,
writers, filmmakers, and musicians saw their works assailed by the
political leaders of their country on the grounds of ideological
impurity. Science and its practitioners soon became the next victims.
"[T]heoretical physics, cosmology, chemistry, genetics, medicine,
psychology and cybernetics were all systematically raked over."1
Denying objective reality as well as objective scientific research,
this pogrom "attempt[ed] to change fundamental human attitudes over
the whole range of knowledge by the use of naked police power."2 The
label given to this politicization of science -- Lysenkoism --
derived from T. D. Lysenko, a Soviet biologist who sought to destroy
the science of genetics in the name of Marxism.

In the Soviet Union, scientists who failed to
align themselves in the politically correct fashion and accept the
new orthodoxy discovered themselves out of work, imprisoned, or
consigned to the netherworld of official -- and sometimes physical --
nonexistence. "The triumph of Lysenkoism was the most extraordinary
of all the indications of the intellectual degeneracy of the Party
mind..."3

While no scientist in our country has been
jailed or murdered due to his beliefs, the same insidious seeds of
intellectual destruction committed in the name of political agendas
have taken root in our society -- and in some instances even been
nourished by governmental officials and policies. Under Soviet style
Lysenkoism, it became evident that "[w]hen encouraged by the
political system, quackery prevailed and 'good' scientists deferred
to politically imposed scientific truth."4 In recent years, a similar
substitution of politics for reality as one's standard for truth has
made itself evident in such areas as environmentalism, economics, and
medicine (in its research on gun ownership, cigarettes, and
drugs).

The pattern of distortions, omissions, and lies
continues to expand in ripples as faulty or fradulent research is
selected by politically motivated individuals and used to advance
their goals of political control. In press releases and in the halls
of government, these falsehoods are passed along to a public which
often lacks the knowledge or ability to recognize and refute the
pronouncements handed down by the authorities they are instructed to
trust. The issue is not simply one of reasonable disagreements over
interpretations of data and theories. As did their earlier brethren,
the proponents of modern-day Lysenkoism seek "to change...human
attitudes...by the use of naked police power," i.e., by appealing to
government and its monopoly on force rather than persuasion to
achieve their ends.

The most blatant example of this mind-set comes
from the field of environmentalism. National Center for Atmospheric
Research (NOAA) researcher Steven Schneider said that, "We have to
offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and
make little mention of any doubts we have. Each of us has to decide
what the right balance is between being effective and being
honest."5

Given the track record of recent years, many of
those in the environmental movement have opted more frequently for
the former rather than the latter alternative. Examples of eschewing
honesty in favor of political effectiveness abound in this area. A
few prime examples include:

Declaring that the apple-ripening
agent, Alar, presented an immediate health threat to
consumers. While the media
campaign mounted by the National Resources Defense Council (NRDC)
proved very effective in bankrupting many apple growers, panicking
consumers, and increasing contributions to their organization,
consumers faced no danger from consuming Alar-treated
apples.

Claiming that pesticides applied to
our produce is a major source of carcinogens in our diet while
"organically" grown food is much safer. In reality, 99.9% of
all carcinogens to which we are exposed in our food is naturally
present there rather than being added by man. The pesticide scare
has, however, helped increase the power of the Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) in regulating our lives.

Asserting that dioxin, asbestos, and
PCB's represent immediate and deadly threats to public
health.While none of these substances live up to their
super-nasty reputations, millions of tax dollars have been spent
attempting to eradicate them from the environment. In the case of
asbestos (which comes in two varieties, the most common of which
is relatively benign), such removal efforts actually increase the
levels of asbestos to which people are exposed.

Condemning irradiated food, nuclear
power, EM (electro-magnetic) fields from power lines, and -- most
recently -- chlorine as inimical to human life.Properly handled, all
of these provide net benefits to the quality of human existence.
Environmentalists, however, have so succeeded in convincing
politicians and the public of the dangers of nuclear energy, for
example, that irradiating food as a preservative may never become
widespread despite its value. Even more troubling is the fact that
the construction of nuclear power plants has ended in this country
at the very time when we could use new sources of energy. The
current target of environmentalists, chlorine, is vital in
preserving the quality of our water. Though banning it would lead
to increased risks of epidemics from water-borne diseases, some
environmentalists are pushing ahead with their agenda to do just
that.

Maintaining that manufactured
chlorofluorocarbons (CFC's) (used in refrigerants and hair sprays)
cause ozone depletion, and that our industrial society is
responsible for global warming and acid rain. Despite claims by environmentalists that there is no
longer any dispute regarding these issues, the evidence for their
claims is less than convincing and agreement far from universal.
Natural sources of CFC's far outweigh those produced by man. Yet
even if the ozone layer diminished by the amount predicted by the
alarmists, the increase in ultraviolet exposure would be
equivalent to moving less than a hundred miles farther south. UV
levels naturally increase by 5000% from the poles to the equator,
overwhelming any man-made effects. Nevertheless, the
environmentalists have managed to convince many nations to ban
CFC's, thus denying people in underdeveloped countries access to
inexpensive refrigerants and costing the rest of us more to cool
our cars. Despite this success, in 1992, NASA scientists bypassed
peer review and appealed directly to Congress to end CFC
production even earlier than agreed upon when they reported an
ozone "hole" over the U.S. When the "danger" disappeared a month
later, however, these same scientists did not again appeal to our
government to reverse its percipitous action. Meanwhile, global
warming may well simply be a natural variation in temperature and
-- even if due to human activity -- a net blessing. As for acid
rain in the U.S., the government's own 10-year, half-billion
dollar study failed to establish that any great forest damage
resulted from acid rain. Indeed, average Adriondack lake acidity
was similar to pre-industrial levels. Environmentalists, however,
still managed to gain passage of air quality legislation that will
cost us billions of dollars in useless programs.

Stating that we are drowning in our
own mounting garbage and that recycling is our only hope to deal
with this problem.In truth, more industrialized societies such as ours
use resources more efficiently and waste less. Recycling programs
often result in huge stores of material that are uneconomical to
reuse. Indeed, reprocessing paper creates its own wastes and
energy demands which recycling advocates neglect to consider.
Garbage disposal is a political problem, not a scientific one. We
have the technology to landfill our waste safely and plenty of
land to use for that purpose...if we want to.

The end results of this environmental
Lysenkoism have been tax-funded research money funneled towards
scientists who accept the official lines on these issues; increased
regulations limiting our freedom and violating our property rights
even while we suffer needless monetary costs; fatter coffers for the
environmental groups who choose to be "more effective than honest"
while scaring the public about nonexistent dangers and ignoring more
urgent and real problems; more power for such agencies as the EPA;
the brainwashing of our children in government schools to accept
environmentalist philosophy and falsehoods; a widespread assault on
the free market and our industrial society; and a general
diminishment in the quality of our lives.

In economic science, Lysenkoism is well
documented in any number of publications. Whether considering the
effects of minimum wage legislation, taxation, monetary policy,
business regulation, monopolies, child labor, zoning, inflation,
tariffs and subsidies, free trade, labor policy, banking, public
schools, welfare, rent control, social security, or health care, the
fallacies, lies, and distortions which continue to find their way
into print and public awareness hardly seem to have diminished over
the decades. Despite the best efforts of statist economists, however,
reality has, perhaps, begun to reassert itself in this realm as
people have witnessed the results of implementing politically
motivated economic policies. As with environmental Lysenkoism, many
of the reasons for the continued presentation of economic falsehoods
and their results are the same.

In medicine, unfortunately, the trend seems to
be drifting more in the direction of Lysenkoism. Warnings about drugs,
alcohol, and cigarettes exaggerate the dangers associated with use of
those products and often act as smokescreens for policy suggestions
that would usurp more of our freedom and expand the power of the
state even beyond its currently bloated boundaries. Groups such as
the American Cancer Society, the American Lung Association, and the
American Heart Association adopt many of the same strategies utilized
by environmental groups as they seek to impose by governmental edict
their vision of a perfect world...while accepting our tax money to
help them do so.

Many of the claims of these groups fly in the
face of the available evidence.6 For example, assertions that smoking
causes lung cancer and coronary artery disease; that it leads to net
economic losses for our society; is addictive; occurs because people
are ignorant of its dangers; and presents a real danger to nonsmokers
from secondhand smoke are either wrong or unproven. Such facts,
however, do nothing to diminish the anti-smoking hysteria gripping
our nation.

Similar observations can be made regarding
research on marijuana, cocaine (and crack-babies), alcohol, and other
drugs. If used in excess, any of these substances can cause harm. Yet
the claims made by those seeking to ban or limit their availability
do not withstand critical observation.

Exorbitant claims are also made in the medical
community on the risks of contracting AIDs (acquired immune
deficiency disease). Indeed, claims that "anyone" can contract it are
greatly exaggerated. For those who do not use shared intravenous drug
needles or engage in homosexual sex, the chances of contracting AIDs
are minimal. Yet again, tax-funded research dollars and desires to
control through political means what some see as undesirable behavior
are at stake.

Finally, in a direct assault on a
Constitutionally recognized right -- our Second Amendment right to
keep and bear firearms -- some medical researchers have apparently
decided to "prove" that increased gun ownership means increased death
and that only gun control will solve this "problem"...even if they
must cite nonexistence sources to bolster their case. Examining
recent literature reveals some truly disturbing facts on the state of
gun research in the medical community.7

At the 1994 meeting of the American Society
of Criminology, two researchers discussed the fact that few
anti-gun papers in medical journals cite research from other
fields or research which does not support the position favored by
the authors. The panelists said, "Stating as fact associations
which may be demonstrably false is not just unscientific, it is
unprincipled. The question of advocacy based on political beliefs
rather than scientific fact raises further questions of the proper
scope of medical and public health concern... In the case of
firearms...the advocacy seems to have preceded the health related
research."8

A researcher in the New England Journal of Medicine claimed that limiting gun ownership would reduce
suicides, yet cited a paper in support of that position which
actually claimed the opposite.

A Journal of
the American Medical Association
(JAMA) study claimed increased homicide levels correlated with
increased cocaine use and availability of guns. Unfortunately, the
paper cited in support of that conclusion actually indicated that
the reverse was true in terms of guns. Another JAMA paper asserted
that gun control can reduce violence but cited only studies that
supported the opposite conclusion.

Overall, health literature advocates the
position that greater availability of guns leads to more murder,
suicide, and fatal gun accidents and that gun control will control
these problems. Yet the facts do not support these points. As the
number of guns has increased in this country, fatal gun accidents
have decreased. Using guns for self-defense is safer than doing
nothing or using a less lethal weapon. Where handguns are banned,
other means of suicide are used resulting in no net change in
numbers. Also, greater gun control does not correlate with fewer
murders.

An official of the Center for Disease
Control (CDC) was quoted in JAMA as saying that his
work involved "systematically building a case that owning firearms
causes death." In other words, he chose his conclusion then sought
to find evidence to support it. A paper by two other CDC
researchers claiming that handguns formed 20% of firearms and led
to 90% of all misuse cited a supporting FBI report which did not
exist.

"While the antigun editorials and articles
[in the medical literature] have had the superficial form of
scientific research, the basic tenets of science and scholarship
have too often been lacking. These articles and editorials have
been so biased and have committed so many errors of fact, logic,
and procedure that we can no longer regard them as having a
legitimate claim to be scientific...This indictment...is serious,
especially in an era in which research information is sought as a
basis for public debate and formulation of public policy."9

This, of course, is one of the main problems
with Lysenkoism, no matter in which era it occurs. Subordinating
truth and reality to any cause can only be destructive. While in a
free society we can withstand assaults from sloppy, ignorant, or
unscrupulous reseachers, that struggle becomes much more difficult
when those assaults are sanctioned and supported -- philosophically
and financially -- by members of our government. With such government
organizations as the CDC and the EPA spreading propaganda rather than
promoting truth; with most scientific research funded wholly or in
part by the federal government; with politicians using the results of
faulty or fradualent research to impose new regulations and
legislation on the citizenry and shrink still further the realm of
freedom; with falsehoods being repeated as received wisdom in our
state-run schools and inculcated in our children; with all of these
actions and more occurring, we can see how far our scientific
community has travelled down the path towards a modern version of
Lysenkoism.

Government has no place engaging in an advocacy
that violates its basic purpose of protecting our rights. Researchers
who would abandon objectivity and seek to impose by force rather than
persuasion their views of the world should take caution. The lion
they seek to use in obtaining their own goals can just as easily turn
upon them when they least expect it.

5 Quoted in Official Lies, James
Bennett and Thomas DiLorenzo, 1992, pp.157-158.

6 As detailed by Bennett and DiLorenzo in
Chapter 9, Official Lies.

7 See Don Kates et. al, "Bad Medicine: Doctors
and Guns," in Guns: Who Should Have
Them? edited by David Kopel, 1995. This
article was originally published in somewhat different form in the
Tennessee Law Review, vol. 62, 1995, as "Guns and Public Health: Epidemic of
Violence or Pandemic of Propaganda."